IIRC, that's the settlement Apple made with Nokia, agreeing to give a percentage of iPhone sales revenue to them in exchange for use of Nokia's IP.

I thought the Apple/Nokia agreement is all just rumor and heresay with nobody really knowing the details? Sort of like the agreements MS has. Everyone keeps throwing around figures like $5-$15 per phone but I've never seen any of that confirmed.

I thought the Apple/Nokia agreement is all just rumor and heresay with nobody really knowing the details? Sort of like the agreements MS has. Everyone keeps throwing around figures like $5-$15 per phone but I've never seen any of that confirmed.

Based on the one-time royalty payment of Euro 430 that was publicly reported, Apple is probably paying a bit less than 1% of their iPhone sales revenues ( and probably 3G iPad sales) as an on-going license fee to Nokia. Actually a pretty good deal for Apple since there was no way they were going to successfully argue that they weren't using Nokia's IP without permission (stealing?).

Oh I see. Or rather I see the meaning, but not the relevance to the argument. Apple have disputed some patents on validity, and this one on terms (not really a technicality either). That doesn't seem to reflect in any way on their preferences - it just indicates what they see wrong with this case.

Oh I see. Or rather I see the meaning, but not the relevance to the argument. Apple have disputed some patents on validity, and this one on terms (not really a technicality either). That doesn't seem to reflect in any way on their preferences - it just indicates what they see wrong with this case.

Appeals to authority are not a good way to prove a point. They are based, in essence, on faith, rather than on fact.

I might believe Muller if he cites facts for his opinion. But unless he does, you trust that he is correct.

Maybe he is. But I have less than full faith.

It is, of course, relevant when he clearly knows somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 times as much about patent law and licensing as you do. Given the choice between believing him and believing you, anyone in their right mind would believe him before you.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It is, of course, relevant when he clearly knows somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 times as much about patent law and licensing as you do. Given the choice between believing him and believing you, anyone in their right mind would believe him before you.

I'm of the opinion that no-one knows, apart from a select few people at Apple and Nokia.

Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion then. I figured you were arguing just to argue and somewhat surprised you weren't aware of this. It was widely reported, even by AI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60

There was a $600 million payment that showed up in Nokia's books, how do you know it wasn't a one off?

From Nokia's press release on the settlement: "...The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement..."http://press.nokia.com/2011/06/14/no...nt-with-apple/

While the details are unpublished, the basic settlement terms are very public.
They include the one-time payment and on-going royalties to use Nokia's IP as well as granting a license to Nokia for some of Apple's patents, including even some "innovations that make the iPhone unique" as Apple put it.

Apple confirmed that part at AllThingsD.
“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others’ patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique,” the company said. “We’re glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”

It forms part of the information required upon which to base a belief.

Get it?

Mueller, while his opinions are not always agreeable, makes a clear distinction between what he reports directly from the court (and filings) and his own analysis. All to say, I consider him to be a credible source.

Apparently the 2.25% licensing rate that Moto is asking from Apple is in fact their standard FRAND rate according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents. That might make Apple's negotiations just a bit more difficult since it now appears to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory if the reports are accurate.

"Motorola has consistently demanded a royalty to the tune of 2.25% of Microsoft's sales of the aforementioned and other products implementing the H.264 codec. The 2.25% rate was mentioned multiple times at today's public court session by the presiding judge, Dr. Holger Kircher, as well as counsel for both parties. If that percentage sounds familiar, that's the rate MMI is also demanding from Apple for all products implementing the 3G/UMTS wireless telecommunications standard. I (Mueller) have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE."